Is it better to master the basics or challenge yourself with something beyond your level?
April 24, 2011 2:53 PM Subscribe
With respect to developing skills/expertise, is it better to master basic techniques before moving on to something more challenging, or to challenge yourself with something beyond your level?
I have a habit of drilling myself with the basics of a skill before letting myself move on to something more advanced. Examples would be guitar, flatland BMX, and snowboarding. Certainly, having a solid foundation of basic skills will help when moving on to more challenging pieces, tricks, or terrain, but it's never strictly necessary to master the beginner material before moving to intermediate (or sometimes advanced). But my question is, which do you find better?
On one hand, you don't want to put yourself in danger by taking on physical challenge you're not ready for. A 2 day snowboarder probably should stay away from the black diamonds. And trying to play Flight of the Bumblebee after two weeks of piano would be an exercise in frustration. But on the other hand, struggling through something you're not quite ready for can give you more confidence on the thing that's at your level. It can also keep you from getting bored; I've been on the same guitar books for 2 years because I won't let myself try anything harder until I feel I've nailed the material.
So what works best for you, constrained challenge or jumping into the deep end to learn how to swim? General advice plus specific examples would be helpful as well.
I have a habit of drilling myself with the basics of a skill before letting myself move on to something more advanced. Examples would be guitar, flatland BMX, and snowboarding. Certainly, having a solid foundation of basic skills will help when moving on to more challenging pieces, tricks, or terrain, but it's never strictly necessary to master the beginner material before moving to intermediate (or sometimes advanced). But my question is, which do you find better?
On one hand, you don't want to put yourself in danger by taking on physical challenge you're not ready for. A 2 day snowboarder probably should stay away from the black diamonds. And trying to play Flight of the Bumblebee after two weeks of piano would be an exercise in frustration. But on the other hand, struggling through something you're not quite ready for can give you more confidence on the thing that's at your level. It can also keep you from getting bored; I've been on the same guitar books for 2 years because I won't let myself try anything harder until I feel I've nailed the material.
So what works best for you, constrained challenge or jumping into the deep end to learn how to swim? General advice plus specific examples would be helpful as well.
I'm usually learning something because I enjoy doing it. I learnt to ski so that I could have fun around the mountain with my friends and enjoy a holiday, so I'll happily jump over the edge of the run into something silly, and if I end up going down it head over heels then we'll all have a good laugh. When I played piano it was because I enjoyed playing piano, so I played pieces that I liked, even if I wasn't really up to the challenge.
For me, the drills and practice and whatnot are just tools I use to increase my ability so I can have more fun. But there's no point in it if I never actually get to the fun part! So I try to mix it up a bit between the two. Sometimes I divide up my ski holiday into "training days" and "fun days".
Plus, trying things above my ability level shows up my faults very clearly, and often gives me a better idea of what I ought to be focusing on when I get back to the drills.
posted by emilyw at 3:28 PM on April 24, 2011
For me, the drills and practice and whatnot are just tools I use to increase my ability so I can have more fun. But there's no point in it if I never actually get to the fun part! So I try to mix it up a bit between the two. Sometimes I divide up my ski holiday into "training days" and "fun days".
Plus, trying things above my ability level shows up my faults very clearly, and often gives me a better idea of what I ought to be focusing on when I get back to the drills.
posted by emilyw at 3:28 PM on April 24, 2011
Best answer: It's my experience that autodidacts learn differently than people being taught by other people. Autodidacts seem to necessarily spend a fair amount of their time learning a new discpline in just teaching themselves how to teach themselves that particular discipline/process, whereas those learning from others can generally just throw themselves into the learning process wholesale, relying on their teacher for learning pace, skills evaluation, and promotion to harder skills. So, I think it's important to differentiate self-learning from traditional teacher-student efforts. And I suppose that the best advice I can offer for the committed autodidact is that no two such individuals seem to learn in precisely the same manner, or even in similar manners for similar skills. Obviously, for physical skills, like climbing, sports, manufacture and some artforms, training of the body is a necessarily progressive process, as Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey observes. Yet for largely mental disciplines that are typically taught teacher-to-student, such as Zen, a great deal depends on the unformed mind of the student, as appreciated by the teacher.
Your question seems to be one that would be most important to an autodidact, but would be of limited value to most people learning from a teacher that they respected; however, sometimes, students of teachers do get impatient with what they think is a fixed curriculum, and try for novelty with advanced exercises and material. Good teachers can respect that initiative, while turning it to greater discipline in skill appropriate material.
posted by paulsc at 4:46 PM on April 24, 2011
Your question seems to be one that would be most important to an autodidact, but would be of limited value to most people learning from a teacher that they respected; however, sometimes, students of teachers do get impatient with what they think is a fixed curriculum, and try for novelty with advanced exercises and material. Good teachers can respect that initiative, while turning it to greater discipline in skill appropriate material.
posted by paulsc at 4:46 PM on April 24, 2011
Best answer: With music, I've always progressed by moving onto something more difficult and practicing the more difficult parts. But simultaneously, I'm always working on basic scales, arpeggios, etc for technique, speed, strength.
When I learned to ski, I mastered snowplowing before moving on. My ski instructor told me that I had made something that should have only been a stepping stone into an olympic event. I had to unlearn snowplowing to get to parallel skiing. It was painful. Very painful.
So my two cents is to always do both--work on your basics, but push yourself forward at the same time. And always have someone around who can critique you, so you're not practicing mistakes.
posted by Kronur at 4:48 PM on April 24, 2011
When I learned to ski, I mastered snowplowing before moving on. My ski instructor told me that I had made something that should have only been a stepping stone into an olympic event. I had to unlearn snowplowing to get to parallel skiing. It was painful. Very painful.
So my two cents is to always do both--work on your basics, but push yourself forward at the same time. And always have someone around who can critique you, so you're not practicing mistakes.
posted by Kronur at 4:48 PM on April 24, 2011
This is going to depend highly on the individual and how fast they are able to learn something. Moving onto something more advanced works well for people that learn quickly.
It's always good to have a real solid foundation though. Even when one gets to mastery of a task there is always something to learn from a different angle when reviewing the basics.
posted by zephyr_words at 4:53 PM on April 24, 2011
It's always good to have a real solid foundation though. Even when one gets to mastery of a task there is always something to learn from a different angle when reviewing the basics.
posted by zephyr_words at 4:53 PM on April 24, 2011
Best answer: Classical guitar has the concept of "bursting". You spend a portion of your time learning pedagogy and another portion of your time attempting to play the music as written, with no regard to anything other than How It Sounds.
Part of the time, you slow everything down and concentrate really hard on every microscopic aspect of your technique. Agonize over every detail and burn it into your muscle memory.
Every once in a while, close your mind to everything except the Sound of what you're playing. Fast and reckless, but completely focused on the Sound (results).
Personally, I find that combination satisfactory in guitar playing and in life.
posted by stubby phillips at 5:31 PM on April 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
Part of the time, you slow everything down and concentrate really hard on every microscopic aspect of your technique. Agonize over every detail and burn it into your muscle memory.
Every once in a while, close your mind to everything except the Sound of what you're playing. Fast and reckless, but completely focused on the Sound (results).
Personally, I find that combination satisfactory in guitar playing and in life.
posted by stubby phillips at 5:31 PM on April 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
master basic techniques... something more challenging
A bit of both. Since you seem to be interested in physical skills, I'll talk about tennis as an example. If I (or I guess most people) spent all my time trying to master a forehand before ever playing a game, I'd get bored pretty quick and end up giving up the game. On the other hand just playing without taking time to practice the strokes doesn't get you too far either.
But there are maybe a couple of assumptions worth questioning here.
First if you have as yet not mastered some "basic" skill then it is still challenging for you. I read in a book on calculus once that "doing the first hundred or so integrations is fun". i.e. It hasn't become routine, so it's still a challenge, still has those "aha!" moments, and still can be fun and interesting. But after that doing integration is just a skill that you have, like being able to walk down the stairs.
Secondly, and somewhat at odds with the last point, there are many skills that you *never* "master". The top tennis players in the world still practice their forehands and keep improving them. So there's not really any such thing as having that skill completely down before moving to another level. Maybe just having it down *enough* that you can operate on that next level.
posted by philipy at 5:38 PM on April 24, 2011
A bit of both. Since you seem to be interested in physical skills, I'll talk about tennis as an example. If I (or I guess most people) spent all my time trying to master a forehand before ever playing a game, I'd get bored pretty quick and end up giving up the game. On the other hand just playing without taking time to practice the strokes doesn't get you too far either.
But there are maybe a couple of assumptions worth questioning here.
First if you have as yet not mastered some "basic" skill then it is still challenging for you. I read in a book on calculus once that "doing the first hundred or so integrations is fun". i.e. It hasn't become routine, so it's still a challenge, still has those "aha!" moments, and still can be fun and interesting. But after that doing integration is just a skill that you have, like being able to walk down the stairs.
Secondly, and somewhat at odds with the last point, there are many skills that you *never* "master". The top tennis players in the world still practice their forehands and keep improving them. So there's not really any such thing as having that skill completely down before moving to another level. Maybe just having it down *enough* that you can operate on that next level.
posted by philipy at 5:38 PM on April 24, 2011
Rimsky Korsakov is a perfect example, by the way. Played in super slo-mo, it's an indecipherable chain of chromatics. You have to slog through teaching your fingers to play it, but it never sounds right until it's up to speed and the dynamics are introduced. Spend 55 minutes working out every note and then 5 minutes trying your best to play it like Al Hirt.
Don't watch Kill Bill volume II until you have it down, though.
posted by stubby phillips at 5:43 PM on April 24, 2011
Don't watch Kill Bill volume II until you have it down, though.
posted by stubby phillips at 5:43 PM on April 24, 2011
This question comes up in square dancing, where there are a number of levels, with each level progressively adding new calls and also building on ones from lower levels. Some people prefer to learn a new level and then dance it until they feel comfortable. Others learn a level and then move on to the next one as soon as they can.
This can be disorienting, but (speaking from experience) it can also help you learn the lower level calls better--sometimes you see a call from a lower level in a new light.
For instance, there is a call named "recycle" that is formally defined in one level as consisting of three very specific parts. Then there's a variant of it called "cross cycle" at a higher level which changes one of the three parts. I just learned cross cycle a couple months ago, and by having to learn the one different part, it helped me to better understand recycle, which I've been dancing for years.
Ultimately it's a question of each person's comfort zone. If someone doesn't know the calls for a certain level, they'll annoy people if they join a square and then flail. Most people have a pretty good idea of what level they can dance at, and what their highest level is, so they don't actively try to join squares they'll have trouble in. On the other hand, I've also seen squares that need one more person cajole a lowel-level dancer who they trust into joining them for one dance. Such a person tends to have fast reaction times and also enough flexibility to be led/pushed through a call or series of calls where they don't fully understand what's going on. :-)
posted by A dead Quaker at 6:25 PM on April 24, 2011
This can be disorienting, but (speaking from experience) it can also help you learn the lower level calls better--sometimes you see a call from a lower level in a new light.
For instance, there is a call named "recycle" that is formally defined in one level as consisting of three very specific parts. Then there's a variant of it called "cross cycle" at a higher level which changes one of the three parts. I just learned cross cycle a couple months ago, and by having to learn the one different part, it helped me to better understand recycle, which I've been dancing for years.
Ultimately it's a question of each person's comfort zone. If someone doesn't know the calls for a certain level, they'll annoy people if they join a square and then flail. Most people have a pretty good idea of what level they can dance at, and what their highest level is, so they don't actively try to join squares they'll have trouble in. On the other hand, I've also seen squares that need one more person cajole a lowel-level dancer who they trust into joining them for one dance. Such a person tends to have fast reaction times and also enough flexibility to be led/pushed through a call or series of calls where they don't fully understand what's going on. :-)
posted by A dead Quaker at 6:25 PM on April 24, 2011
I have found that I have difficulty truly mastering the basics unless I understand what they have to do with the advanced stuff. So while I always dutifully did my time doing scales or practicing a vibrato motion (for example) because I knew they were important basic skills, I ALSO would work near the edges of my skill and when I found that piece that NEEDED vibrato, suddenly my basic vibrato technique would jump a million miles ahead. Not necessarily to the advanced level it needed to be, but better. And I throw myself into the exercises with considerably more gusto when I see what the goal is.
I've found this true in cooking, sewing, music, etc. I have a lot more patience for the dull, repetitive bits once I understand how they fit into the fancy, impressive bits ... and I grasp them much better when I see how they fit.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:37 PM on April 24, 2011
I've found this true in cooking, sewing, music, etc. I have a lot more patience for the dull, repetitive bits once I understand how they fit into the fancy, impressive bits ... and I grasp them much better when I see how they fit.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:37 PM on April 24, 2011
Best answer: what works best for you, constrained challenge or jumping into the deep end to learn how to swim?
I like to go into the middle area in between the shallow and deep end, then go swimming back to the shallow end and act all hard 'cause I just got back from deep water, yo. I then repeat, but every time start off a little deeper.
Challenging yourself is good but like a cat with a toy, sometimes you have to let the cat catch the toy or it will quickly lose interest.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:25 PM on April 24, 2011
I like to go into the middle area in between the shallow and deep end, then go swimming back to the shallow end and act all hard 'cause I just got back from deep water, yo. I then repeat, but every time start off a little deeper.
Challenging yourself is good but like a cat with a toy, sometimes you have to let the cat catch the toy or it will quickly lose interest.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:25 PM on April 24, 2011
Best answer: I've found, with physical as well as mental projects, that Russel Schweickart's advice holds pretty true (he was one of the Apollo 9 astronauts, among other things): "If you want to move forward into new territory, what you do is put yourself near that ragged edge, because that's where things are moving the fastest. If you're learning how to ski, the optimum learning rate is where you're not standing up all the way down the hill nor are you totally wiping out every time, but where you're right on that edge of being out of control but you're just barely in control. If what you're interested in doing is learning, then what you do is place yourself in that kind of situation." So of course you need to do drills, everybody does -- Liszt used to read detective stories while playing through various exercises by rote, and Saint-Saëns read the daily papers -- but for me the most effective learning happens at the edge of what I'm presently capable of. You might also be interested in the idea, spread by James Paul Gee's studies of video gamers from A.A. di Sessa's work on computer literacy, of the "regime of competence," where you learn rapidly in the "pleasantly frustrating" space where you're very nearly but not quite out of your depth.
posted by finnb at 6:56 AM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by finnb at 6:56 AM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
One of the things "Coach" points out is that most Americans won't have the patience to start at level 1 on all six and work their way up. He expects most people will find the highest level they can do reps at and start from there.
In this particular circumstance, "Coach" predicts failure for that route, as working up all the way through the lower levels teaches cadence, conditions the joints/tendons, begins to increase range of motion, and prepares the body for the upper levels.
One thing I learned from running: muscles develop much faster than tendons, which develop much faster than bones. I have a history of training injuries from pushing too hard too fast. Most training injuries come from pushing the body as fast as the muscles will develop without giving things like the tendons and bones time to develop at their own pace.
Training injuries cause lost training time which causes lost progress.
At 42, I've committed myself to achieving the Master Step on each of the Big-6. I started several months ago on level 1 across the board, and then only on 4 of 6 (recently added the last 2). Haven't had a training injury since I started, making solid progress and am in the best shape of my life.
Plyometric exercises (explosive, jumping movements) I generally consider a second-level exercise, one that an athlete should master a certain degree of muscular strength before moving up to.
But yeah, I'm of the opinion that if one wants to just play around, jump in at the intermediate level that looks fun. If one wants to master something, one has to walk before one can run, or at best one will achieve a stumbling trot.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 3:23 PM on April 24, 2011 [6 favorites]